The Cannabis Reporterhttps://www.thecannabisreporter.com
Empowering Through AwarenessWed, 21 Feb 2018 20:02:38 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.4
Cannabis has potential to solve some of the most perplexing issues facing the world today. As one of the world’s most sustainable, resilient, renewable, healing and useful plant species available, Cannabis has capacity to cure disease, eradicate hunger, remediate toxic soil, end deforestation, replace fossil fuels and reverse climate change. Since prohibition began in the the 1930’s, cannabis has become one of the most controversial and misunderstood substances on earth.

Raising awareness is key to dispelling myths, earning public acceptance, achieving social justice and ultimately reversing prohibition. That is our mission.

We endeavor to empower readers to move beyond public misperception with fact-based content that as is entertaining and inspirational as it is credible and informative. While we support patient advocacy and the end of prohibition, we hold ourselves to the highest standards of journalistic integrity and will always make our readers’ best interests our number one priority.

We hope you enjoy The Cannabis Reporter and encourage you to engage with our resources, directory and social media. Please feel free to contact us with questions, suggestions you may have, or just to say “hello.”]]>Snowden BishopcleanSnowden Bishopinfo@thecannabisreporter.cominfo@thecannabisreporter.com (Snowden Bishop)The Cannabis ReporterEmpowering through awareness, we provide in-depth information on cannabis, cannabis products, dispensaries and marijuana's cultural impactThe Cannabis Reporterhttps://thecannabisreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/powerpress/tcr-podcast-logo-embiggened.pnghttps://www.thecannabisreporter.com
Californians are using medical marijuana cards to get discounts on recreational weed - The Cannabis Reporterhttps://www.thecannabisreporter.com/californians-using-medical-marijuana-cards-get-discounts-recreational-weed/
https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/californians-using-medical-marijuana-cards-get-discounts-recreational-weed/#respondWed, 21 Feb 2018 18:28:44 +0000https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/?p=69700Fifteen years ago, the state of California created a license for medical marijuana patients to legally consume, cultivate, possess or transport medical marijuana within the state. The card offered medical marijuana patients a tangible form of identification, further legitimizing California’s 1996 Compassionate Use Act, which established California as the first state to legalize medical marijuana.…

]]>Fifteen years ago, the state of California created a license for medical marijuana patients to legally consume, cultivate, possess or transport medical marijuana within the state. The card offered medical marijuana patients a tangible form of identification, further legitimizing California’s 1996 Compassionate Use Act, which established California as the first state to legalize medical marijuana. And yet, despite the symbolic victory at the time that the marijuana cards were created, they were dismally unpopular. But now, with the officiation of California’s recreational marijuana law this past January, that is quickly changing.

The main reason for the marijuana cards’ surge in popularity is a tax benefit afforded to cardholders purchasing from dispensaries within the state. As medical patients, these cardholders are not required to pay use or sales taxes, which cost consumers between 7.25 and 10.25 percent of their total purchase. As a result, in some counties, appointments with county health officials to obtain one of these marijuana cards must suddenly be booked months in advance.

When the marijuana cards were first introduced, many were afraid to apply using their personal information, because marijuana is still federally illegal. At the time, recreational marijuana was also illegal in all 50 states. And although the California Department of Public Health reportedly does not hold on to people’s personal records, the government and law enforcement officers’ history of targeting marijuana users has left many weary.

As a result, in Los Angeles, the second most populous city in the United States, only about 10,000 marijuana cards have been issued since 2004. This means that only about 0.2% of the city, which has a population of about 4 million people, own medical marijuana cards.

According to Politifact, the actual likelihood of medical marijuana patients being targeted by the federal government, especially in a state where marijuana is legal, is extremely slim. This is in part due to the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment, which prevents the Department of Justice from targeting medical marijuana patients covered by state-legal programs. This amendment was recently renewed by Congress until March 23rd.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ strong opposition to marijuana, including his recent rescinding of state-legal marijuana protections known as the Cole Memo, have many marijuana enthusiasts on edge about short-term federal marijuana enforcement. But with the majority of the U.S. possessing some form of legal marijuana legislation and over 90% of registered voters supporting medical marijuana, many see the federal legalization of marijuana as inevitable. And in California, where marijuana has long been accessible and socially acceptable, it’s easy for some to feel sheltered from the federal government’s prohibitionist stance.

Now that recreational marijuana dispensaries have become a fixed part of the California landscape, proponents have already turned their attention to minimizing consumer costs. With a 15 percent excise tax, local taxes of roughly 5 to 10 percent, and sales tax of about 7 to 10 percent, some shoppers can end up paying up to 40 percent in taxes. With a California medical marijuana card, consumers can shave about 10 percent off that.

]]>https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/californians-using-medical-marijuana-cards-get-discounts-recreational-weed/feed/0An Insider’s View: How Labs Conduct Cannabis Mold Testing - The Cannabis Reporterhttps://www.thecannabisreporter.com/insiders-view-labs-conduct-cannabis-mold-testing/
https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/insiders-view-labs-conduct-cannabis-mold-testing/#respondWed, 21 Feb 2018 17:01:00 +0000https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/?p=69684As both recreational and medical cannabis legalization continues to progress across the country, each state is tasked with developing regulatory requirements to ensure that customers and patients receive clean cannabis for consumption. This requires cannabis to undergo laboratory testing that analyzes the presence of microbial impurities including yeast and mold. Some states, such as Colorado,…

]]>As both recreational and medical cannabis legalization continues to progress across the country, each state is tasked with developing regulatory requirements to ensure that customers and patients receive clean cannabis for consumption. This requires cannabis to undergo laboratory testing that analyzes the presence of microbial impurities including yeast and mold.

Some states, such as Colorado, Nevada, Maine, Illinois and Massachusetts use total yeast and mold count testing (TYMC) and set a maximum yeast and mold count threshold that cultivators must fall below. Other states, such as California, require the detection of species-specific strains of Aspergillus mold (A. fumigatus, A. flavus, A. niger and A. terreus), which requires analyzing the DNA of a cannabis sample through polymerase chain reaction testing, also known as PCR.

Differences in state regulations can lead to different microbiological techniques implemented for testing.Before diving in further, it is important to understand the scientific approach. Laboratory testing requirements for cannabis can be separated into two categories: analytical chemistry methods and microbiological methods.

Analytical chemistry is the science of qualitatively and quantitatively determining the chemical components of a substance, and usually consists of some kind of separation followed by detection. Analytical methods are used to uncover the potency of cannabis, analyze the terpene profile and to detect the presence of pesticides, chemical residues, residuals solvents, heavy metals and mycotoxins. Analytical testing methods are performed first before proceeding to microbiological methods.

Microbiological methods dive deeper into cannabis at a cellular level to uncover microbial impurities such as yeast, mold and bacteria. The techniques utilized in microbiological methods are very different from traditional analytical chemistry methods in both the way they are performed and target of the analysis. Differences in state regulations can lead to different microbiological techniques implemented for testing. There are a variety of cell and molecular biology techniques that can be used for detecting microbial impurities, but most can be separated into two categories:

Methods to determine total microbial cell numbers, which typically utilizes cell culture, which involves growing cells in favorable conditions and plating, spreading the sample evenly in a container like a petri dish. The total yeast and mold count (TYMC) test follows this method.

Molecular methods intended to detect specific species of mold, such as harmful aspergillus mold strains, which typically involves testing for the presence of unique DNA sequences such as Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR).

Among states that have legalized some form of cannabis use and put forth regulations, there appears to be a broad consensus that the laboratories should test for potency (cannabinoids concentration), pesticides (or chemical residues) and residual solvents at a minimum. On the other hand, microbial testing requirements, particularly for mold, appear to vary greatly from state to state. Oregon requires random testing for mold and mildew without any details on test type. In Colorado, Nevada, Maine, Illinois and Massachusetts, regulations explicitly state the use of TYMC for the detection of mold. In California, the recently released emergency regulations require testing for specific species of Aspergillus mold (A. fumigatus, A. flavus, A. niger and A. terreus), which are difficult to differentiate on a plate and would require a DNA-based approach. Since there are differences in costs associated and data produced by these methods, this issue will impact product costs for cultivators, which will affect cannabis prices for consumers.

]]>https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/insiders-view-labs-conduct-cannabis-mold-testing/feed/0Philadelphia becomes the latest city to drop marijuana possession charges - The Cannabis Reporterhttps://www.thecannabisreporter.com/philadelphia-becomes-latest-city-drop-marijuana-possession-charges/
https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/philadelphia-becomes-latest-city-drop-marijuana-possession-charges/#respondWed, 21 Feb 2018 15:30:45 +0000https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/?p=69788When Larry Krasner was elected as Philadelphia’s District Attorney last year, people began getting their hopes up. The criminal defense lawyer was known for aligning himself with activists and taking on civil rights cases, some for free when the client couldn’t afford to pay for his services. For Philadelphia, it looked like Krasner was primed…

]]>When Larry Krasner was elected as Philadelphia’s District Attorney last year, people began getting their hopes up. The criminal defense lawyer was known for aligning himself with activists and taking on civil rights cases, some for free when the client couldn’t afford to pay for his services. For Philadelphia, it looked like Krasner was primed to bring about change and, last week, the new DA started to live up to the hype. Krasner announced that his office dropped charges against 51 people for marijuana possession. And it isn’t ending today. Even if police pursue fining people for possession, Krasner’s office will simply continue to drop the cases.

“We are going to tell them, yes, drop any cases that are simply marijuana possession,” said Krasner at a press conference.

Krasner also wrote an op-ed in The Inquirer about the sweeping drug reforms he intends to enact. Krasner says that while he can’t rewrite history to undo the wrongs of the war on drugs, he can work towards correcting its mistakes in the present. His new goals are to treat drug addiction as a health issue and not a crime issue. The city is also seeking damages from pharmaceutical companies that pushed opioids.

People march with a 51-foot-long marijuana joint protesting the “racist drug war” and holding signs in support of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders during a protest at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, July 25, 2016 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP/Getty Images)

“Thirty years ago, crack cocaine invaded our city. With it came addiction and violence, and the government responded with a so-called “War on Drugs,”” wrote Krasner in an op-ed in The Inquirer. “As a society, we failed many people during the crack epidemic by treating it solely as a law enforcement problem rather than a health problem. Many people spent time in jail when they should have spent time in treatment. No doubt, criminalizing addiction happened in part because the people affected were mainly African-American, Latino and poor.”

Philadelphia is merely the latest city to drop weed charges en masse. San Diego and San Francisco both eliminated thousands of marijuana-related convictions after California’s recreational market opened on Jan. 1. Seattle also recently announced that it intends to drop misdemeanors for simple marijuana possession. This is a part of a nationwide movement to raise awareness about the disproportionate punishment for marijuana crimes in states across the U.S., particularly in communities of color. The Marijuana Justice Act, a federal bill that aims to end marijuana prohibition, includes radical criminal justice reform measures.

“I did it because I felt it was the right thing to do,” Krasner said. “We could use those resources to solve homicides.”

]]>For the ‘tough-on-crime Attorney General, last Wednesday was spent penning a frustrated letter to the Senate demanding that they stop trying to set dangerous drug dealers free. The letter, addressed to Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), referenced a proposed bill known as the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act which aims to eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing for certain drug-related crimes and could also retroactively apply to those who are currently serving jail time according to Sessions.

Given his history of opposition to drugs in general, the AG is opposed to the bill, so before it went to a vote in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, the AG sent a plea to his fellow Republican, Grassley, who chairs the committee.

“[T]his legislation would be a grave error,” the letter reads warning that, “We are in the midst of the largest drug crisis in this nation’s history.”

Before a bill goes to the House or the Senate floor for a vote, it is expected to go through a review process by Congressional committees which oversee the specific government functions that bills could affect. The committee stage is often an opportunity for those who don’t like a bill to kill it before it can become a law. Unfortunately for Sessions, this particular bill was popular among members of both parties and was approved by a vote of 16-5.

Grassley took the time to respond to the letter on Twitter essentially telling the former Senator from Alabama to stay in his lane when it comes to new legislation and reminding Sessions that he has no right to interfere with what Congress is doing.

Having defended Sessions during his nomination hearings, Grassley was so angry at the AG that he even broke from his planned statement before the committee on the day of the vote to address the letter.

“Certainly we value input from the Department of Justice,” the Iowa Senator said, “but if [Attorney] General Sessions wanted to be involved in marking up this legislation, maybe he should have quit his job and run for the Republican Senate seat in Alabama.”

The bill runs counter to the tough-on-crime policies the Department of Justice has spent the previous year implementing. In February 2017, Sessions reversed course on an order from the previous administration which would have phased out the federal government’s contracts with private prisons.

The initial decision to roll back private prison contracts came as a 2016 report from the Office of the Inspector General revealed that the conditions in these prisons bordered on human rights violations.

Sessions’ reversal of that policy was followed by the rescission of the Cole Memo as well as several announcements indicating that the administration would crack down on illegal immigration.

Those decisions, taken together, have been seen as seriously controversial since the majority of inmates which fill private prison cells are drug offenders and immigrants according to a report from Quartz.

Under the new administration, private prisons have done incredibly well with their stocks rebounding significantly once it was clear that Sessions, a long time supporter of the industry, would be put in charge of the country’s prison policies. Sessions has been such a key ally of the private prison industry that stocks even took a bit of a dip late last year when President Trump was publicly wondering whether the Attorney General would keep his job.

Sessions himself has been on the receiving end of allegations that he stands to gain from the success of private prisons because he owns shares in two of the largest prison contractors in the country; Corecivic Inc. and The GEO Group Inc. While this is true, those investments are lumped together with thousands of other companies which, as fact-checking website Snopes points out, would mean the Attorney General stands to gain very little from their success.

In any case, Sessions has noted that he’s not entirely opposed to prison reform, though he would prefer that it come after prisoners have served their time.

“As you know,” Sessions letter to Grassley reads, “the Administration supports helping former inmates who have served lawfully imposed sentences and have demonstrated a commitment to a better life…”

Last month, President Trump promised to implement prison reform as part of his State of the Union speech, but according to a memo leaked to Government Executive in early January he has also ordered that more prisoner be moved to private prions raising eyebrows among those who remember the donations made to the Trump campaign by GEO Group which donated $250,000 to fund Trump’s Inauguration celebrations.

]]>https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/jeff-sessions-warns-senators-stop-trying-set-drug-offenders-free/feed/0UK Parliament Will Debate the Future of Marijuana Legalization - The Cannabis Reporterhttps://www.thecannabisreporter.com/uk-parliament-will-debate-future-marijuana-legalization/
https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/uk-parliament-will-debate-future-marijuana-legalization/#respondWed, 21 Feb 2018 14:40:53 +0000https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/?p=69718The movement for marijuana legalization in Great Britain might be picking up momentum, as the UK Parliament will debate a limited legalization bill on Feb. 23 on the future of marijuana legalization. Among western European nations, the UK parliament is perhaps most strident in its view that cannabis is a dangerous drug whose users should…

The movement for marijuana legalization in Great Britain might be picking up momentum, as the UK Parliament will debate a limited legalization bill on Feb. 23 on the future of marijuana legalization.

Among western European nations, the UK parliament is perhaps most strident in its view that cannabis is a dangerous drug whose users should be treated like criminals.

Throughout most of Europe, sick people can access marijuana grown in controlled conditions under the authority of their governments. In Italy, for example, medical marijuana is grown in an army lab and even oft-conservative Germany legalized medical marijuana a year ago.

But in England, authorities are following the lead of the American federal government and insisting that marijuana is harmful. While penalties are far less harsh than in the United States, cannabis remains under the control of the UK’s Home Office — the arm of the government that includes antiterrorism efforts, the prison system and domestic surveillance — and consuming the plant remains illegal.

However, following the plight of Alfie Dingley, a six-year-old epileptic whose family was forced to relocate to the Netherlands to give him cannabis oil, even lawmakers from the UK’s leading Conservative Party are asking authorities in Prime Minister Theresa May’s government to relent.

A bill that would allow limited legalization of marijuana for strictly medical purposes will be read for the second time in Parliament this week, setting up for a legislative debate on the validity of medical marijuana. But here’s an unfortunate wrinkle: Without official support from Prime Minister May and her cabinet ministers, few bills can hope to become law in the UK.

And so, it appears that medical marijuana in the UK has as much chance of becoming law as the many cannabis-friendly bills in the U.S. Congress, which, year-after-year, die for want of a committee hearing.

It’s a “barbaric position,” according to Paul Flynn, the Labour MP from Wales who introduced the bill in Parliament.

Parents of epileptic children like Alfie have had to watch their children turn blue or flee the UK for kinder climes overseas, for no other reason than the “blind stupidity of the government,” Flynn added in an impassioned video posted to his Facebook. “Cannabis is a useful medicine, the oldest medicine in the world. And there’s no denying its use.”

It’s an ironic situation, as the British bear responsibility for introducing cannabis into the western pharmacopoeia. It was William O’Shaughnessy, an Irish doctor in the service of the British East India Company, who studied the medicinal application of cannabis and published one of the very first papers in medical literature documenting its value while working in Calcutta. And, as Flynn pointed out on the floor of the House of Commons when he first introduced the bill last October, Queen Victoria is said to have used cannabis to relieve her menstrual cramps.

Cannabis is classified as a “Class B” drug in the UK, the second-most punitive category. Cannabis was very briefly moved into Class C, from 2004 until 2008, until hysteria over “super-potent” cannabis, dubbed “skunk” in the UK, convinced authorities to put the drug back in Class B.

Thus far, both the major political parties in UK parliament have proven unwilling to move much on marijuana. It was the “left-wing” Labour Party that saw the drug reclassified a decade ago, and May, the Conservative PM, last year suggested that cannabis use leads to heroin — and suicide.

]]>https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/uk-parliament-will-debate-future-marijuana-legalization/feed/0Today Is the 40th Anniversary of America’s First Medical Marijuana Law - The Cannabis Reporterhttps://www.thecannabisreporter.com/today-40th-anniversary-americas-first-medical-marijuana-law/
https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/today-40th-anniversary-americas-first-medical-marijuana-law/#respondWed, 21 Feb 2018 14:00:32 +0000https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/?p=69741New Mexico enacted the first medical marijuana law in the nation on Feb. 21, 1978, thanks to the activism of one cancer patient named Lynn Pierson. Today — Feb. 21, 2018 — marks the 40th anniversary of the nation’s first medical marijuana law, and unfortunately, the story of its passage is too often forgotten. Jimmy…

New Mexico enacted the first medical marijuana law in the nation on Feb. 21, 1978, thanks to the activism of one cancer patient named Lynn Pierson.

Today — Feb. 21, 2018 — marks the 40th anniversary of the nation’s first medical marijuana law, and unfortunately, the story of its passage is too often forgotten.

Jimmy Carter was president and for most Americans, marijuana was a dangerous substance that deserved to be illegal. Meanwhile, a handful of young Americans had discovered marijuana had some unique, beneficial properties, especially in the treatment of the side-effects of cancer chemotherapy. Among them was a lanky New Mexican named Lynn Pierson, who was losing his battle with testicular cancer and found the chemotherapy “cure” worse than the disease. When he told his oncologist he wanted to quit chemotherapy because of debilitating side-effects, the doctor shocked him when he asked if Pierson had tried marijuana. Anecdotal accounts of marijuana’s ability to reduce the chemo-induced nausea and vomiting had been written up in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1975 and some oncologists felt their patients had nothing to lose by trying the illegal substance.

Pierson took his doctor’s advice and was amazed. “It was a miracle,” Pierson would later say. “A few puffs of pot took the nausea away. And there was hardly any vomiting. Then I got real hungry. Hell, I ate so much I actually gained some weight.”

Pierson told other patients at Albuquerque’s VA hospital about this miracle. But one friend, an older patient, would not try marijuana because of its illegality. The man died a horrible death and Pierson vowed he would not let that happen to others. He contacted Robert Randall, a glaucoma patient who was then the nation’s only legal marijuana patient. In 1976, as the result of a successful court case, Randall had forced the government to give him federal supplies of marijuana and Pierson wanted the same privilege.

Randall knew that Pierson probably would not live long enough to make his way through the legal complexities imposed by the feds, but Pierson had something that Randall, a resident of the District of Columbia, did not have — a state legislature. He encouraged Pierson to approach New Mexico’s state legislature, reasoning that compassion would win out.

Pierson attacked the task with a passion that would not be denied. He lobbied all 96 members of New Mexico’s House of Representatives. Pierson also enlisted the press and, with their help, he was able to rally the help of other patients. Legislative committees began exploring ways to get marijuana supplies to cancer patients and it wasn’t long before Washington, D.C. heard of this uprising in the Land of Enchantment.

Bureaucrats from the DEA, NIDA and FDA were soon on the phone cautioning New Mexico that its actions were potentially in violation of federal law.

For a while, it seemed the feds would prevail, but their strong-arm tactics did not sit well with citizens of New Mexico.

Members of the state legislature came up with a solution the feds — who were constantly harping about the lack of research — could not deny. New Mexico would establish a state-wide program of research, using federal supplies of marijuana to treat cancer and glaucoma patients. The result was the Controlled Substances Therapeutic Research Act, which became a model for more than 30 other states in the late 1970s and early 80s.

The bill passed in New Mexico by overwhelming margins (53-9 in the House, 33-1 in the Senate). It was signed as “emergency legislation” by Governor Jerry Apodaca on Feb. 21, 1978. The medical marijuana revolution had begun.

Despite Apodaca’s proclamation of an emergency, Lynn Pierson never benefited from the legislation. The feds blocked and obfuscated the state’s program, and Pierson died in August 1978 without ever receiving legal supplies.

But New Mexico hasn’t forgotten Pierson. In 2007, when the state once again legalized medical marijuana access, this time using state-grown marijuana to circumvent federal oversight, the legislation was entitled “The Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act,” recognizing both Pierson and another young cancer patient who picked up the battle flag in the 21st century, Erin Armstrong.

Today, we celebrate Pierson as one of the many patients who gave the last good days of their lives fighting to right the wrong of prohibiting access to medical cannabis and the man behind the nation’s first medical marijuana law.

]]>https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/today-40th-anniversary-americas-first-medical-marijuana-law/feed/0Six applicants denied medical marijuana grow licenses are suing Ohio - The Cannabis Reporterhttps://www.thecannabisreporter.com/six-applicants-denied-medical-marijuana-grow-licenses-suing-ohio/
https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/six-applicants-denied-medical-marijuana-grow-licenses-suing-ohio/#respondWed, 21 Feb 2018 13:01:42 +0000https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/?p=69736Feb. 20–COLUMBUS, Ohio — Six unsuccessful applicants to grow medical marijuana in Ohio claim in a new lawsuit that state regulators failed to follow their own rules while scoring cultivator applications, made several scoring errors and hired scoring consultants who had blatant conflicts of interest. Several groups led by Jimmy Gould of CannAscend Ohio LLC…

Feb. 20–COLUMBUS, Ohio — Six unsuccessful applicants to grow medical marijuana in Ohio claim in a new lawsuit that state regulators failed to follow their own rules while scoring cultivator applications, made several scoring errors and hired scoring consultants who had blatant conflicts of interest.

Several groups led by Jimmy Gould of CannAscend Ohio LLC filed a lawsuit Tuesday in Franklin County Common Pleas court challenging the Ohio Department of Commerce’s process for awarding the highly sought after licenses. They want a judge to block the state from awarding operating licenses to the 12 companies awarded provisional licenses for large-scale growing facilities.

The complaint alleges the department made several mistakes including the following:
–Five licenses were awarded to companies that should have been disqualified for failing to meet pass-fail criteria or misrepresenting compliance with those requirements.
–The two minority-owned companies that received licenses aren’t actually owned and operated by individuals meeting the law’s definition for the set-aside.
–Scores for at least 14 applications were calculated incorrectly.
–Scoring consultants, including two who had knowledge of the scoring rubric in advance of the application deadline, had blatant conflicts of interest with companies awarded licenses.

These mistakes lead “to a fundamentally arbitrary, capricious, unfair, and flawed scoring process” and the plaintiffs spent millions of dollars to comply with “rules the department did not properly enforce or follow,” attorneys wrote in the complaint, a copy of which CannAscend provided to cleveland.com.

The department declined to comment Tuesday and does not comment on pending litigation. Department officials have fiercely defended the scoring process and pledged to continue establishing the program to meet the law’s Sept. 8 deadline to be up and running.

Gould, one of the founders of pro-recreational marijuana group ResponsibleOhio, threatened a lawsuit back in November, when the department awarded provisional licenses for 12 grows up to 3,000 square feet and 12 grows up to 25,000 square feet.

Since then, questions have been raised about consultants hired to help score applications and security around the department’s online portal where applications and scores were stored for reviewers.

The department was sued in December over state law requiring that 15 percent of all marijuana business licenses go to minority-owned businesses.

Of the 185 applications, 131 were disqualified, mostly for not meeting a minimum score in one or several parts of the application. Sixty-nine applicants have filed appeals with the department.

Scoring errors

The complaint details several examples of “scoring defects” that benefited winning companies’ scores and hurt losing companies’ scores.
Among those:
–Some applicants were marked down for failing to show they would properly package material under a rule that was not finalized until three months after applications were submitted, according to the complaint.
–Applicants were scored on criteria that did not appear in state law, rules or application instructions.
–Applicants were docked points for excluding data that was actually in the application.
–The department did not add up the scores correctly for 14 of 17 applications reviewed by plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Pass/fail criteria

The complaint alleges the department did not verify several pass/fail criteria in the application such as locating a grow site 500 feet from a school, church or other prohibited facility and having the required liquid capital. And additionally, the complaint alleges, the department did not verify that two businesses were owned and controlled by a minority as claimed by the applicant.

Last week, cleveland.com reported four applicants’ proposed grow sites did not meet the requirement they be 500 feet from the nearest school, church, playground, child care center or other prohibited facility at the time of application. The department said the provisional licensees have nine months to comply with all rules and regulations, but the complaint says that was not the intent of the law and was not communicated to applicants.

Three of those companies are cited in the lawsuit: Cresco Labs Ohio LLC, Grow Ohio Pharmaceuticals LLC and Terradiol Ohio LLC.

The lawsuit also challenges whether the reported principals for Harvest Grows LLC and Parma Wellness LLC actually own and control at least 51 percent of the company. The complaint alleges both companies are actually owned and controlled by out-of-state investors.

It also claims Harvest Grows’ application did not mention the Arizona-based company’s president, who would have been subject to a background check showing involvement in a federal drug investigation.

Department did not control for conflicts of interest

The complaint alleges that the department did not properly vet three consultants hire to help score applications and did little to control for potential conflicts of interest.

The lawsuit claims the department should have easily learned of conflicts of interest between Jason Meade and Keoki Wing of Meade & Wing LLC and applicant Harvest Grows, which were reported in a December cleveland.com story. Meade & Wing was also seeking work for would-be applicants months before being hired by the department, according to the complaint.

Consultant B&B Grows helped draft the scoring rubric and reported a conflict of interest after applications were submitted, according to the complaint. The department said B&B did not assist in scoring. One of B&B’s two partners, Bret Bender, left the company in October and became the Illinois political director for national lobbying group Marijuana Policy Project.

Most of the 25 scorers were state employees, which the complaint claims had little or no experience with medical marijuana.

“The department failed to score the applications with competent graders with the requisite subject matter expertise capable of producing results that were not arbitrary and capricious,” states the complaint.

Had the scoring process been properly administered, the complaint claims, the six companies would have received provisional licenses.

]]>https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/six-applicants-denied-medical-marijuana-grow-licenses-suing-ohio/feed/0What the courts have to consider in order to end marijuana prohibition - The Cannabis Reporterhttps://www.thecannabisreporter.com/courts-consider-order-end-marijuana-prohibition/
https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/courts-consider-order-end-marijuana-prohibition/#respondWed, 21 Feb 2018 11:24:44 +0000https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/?p=69706The ballsy legal case of Washington v. Sessions has made national news. Five plaintiffs—including former NFL Player Marvin Washington, two children who use cannabis for life-threatening conditions, a veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder, and one other—are suing Attorney General Jeff Sessions, among other federal agents, on the grounds that cannabis prohibition is unconstitutional. The judge…

]]>The ballsy legal case of Washington v. Sessions has made national news. Five plaintiffs—including former NFL Player Marvin Washington, two children who use cannabis for life-threatening conditions, a veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder, and one other—are suing Attorney General Jeff Sessions, among other federal agents, on the grounds that cannabis prohibition is unconstitutional. The judge heard their case during an oral argument in a federal courthouse on February 14. If the plaintiffs win, it could make cannabis legal in all 50 states.

From a moral standpoint, many see it as a no-brainer: Kids, who would otherwise die without medical cannabis, deserve to legally consume it, so it should be de-scheduled as an illegal narcotic. From a legal standpoint, it’s a bit murkier. Herb sat down with the plaintiffs’ attorney David C. Holland, Esq. to hear what the judge must consider in the case.

Holland’s cannabis curriculum vitae is lengthy. He is a litigation attorney in New York City and serves as Executive and Legal Director of Empire State NORML. He is also former Counsel to High Times Magazine, and a member of the New York Cannabis Bar Association. Holland walked us through the points both sides are making, what transpired in court last week and what ruling is expected.

Herb: Why have the plaintiffs sued U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Sessions?

Holland: The five plaintiffs have sued U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions, III, and the DEA, to declare the classification of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act unconstitutional on claims it violates their rights, including that to travel, to be engaged in business’ interests, and to be free from racial discrimination and in enforcement of the law against communities of color. The Government denies those claims and has moved to dismiss the action.

Herb: What are the main components of the Controlled Substances Act? Take us through its procedural history.

Holland: In 1970, the federal Controlled Substances Act established 5 classifications from Schedule I to V, ranging from prohibited to prescription, which classify and categorize drugs and how they may be researched, used and administered. Marijuana was placed in Schedule I (the most restrictive) based upon three criteria: high risk of abuse, no medical efficacy or use, and no ability to use or research it in a safe manner. Cannabis has never been rescheduled since 1970.

That Schedule I classification of cannabis can be changed by one of 3 ways: act of Congress, act of the US Attorney General, or act of the FDA. Within the CSA is an administrative remedy where anyone can petition the FDA to have cannabis rescheduled where it would no longer be prohibited in that most restricted classification.

Herb: If anyone can petition the FDA, why haven’t more patients done so?

Holland: The petitioning process can take years if not a decade to get an FDA determination on the rescheduling request and they repeatedly denied those petitions as recently as 2013 (Americans for Safe Access v. FDA), and 2016 (Krumm Petition) finding that cannabis still should sit as a Schedule I substance based on those three criteria.

Holland: Three of the Plaintiffs in the Washington case, Alexis Bortell, Jagger Cotte, and Jose Belen, suffer life-threatening or severely debilitating diseases and must seek to bypass the administrative petitioning process to the FDA to get more immediate relief because they may not live long enough to otherwise wait and hear the determination. The CSA petitioning process does not have any realistically viable means for them to expedite review of a petition to bring relief to their life-altering and life-threatening circumstances. Therefore, for them, the petitioning process is futile and they seek relief from the federal court for the CSA’s violation of their constitutional rights, with regard to this medicine as well as redress of other violations and due process.

The Government has moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims on a multitude of theories rather than put in an answer to the claims and let them be heard and determined by the judge or jury.

On February 14, 2018, Judge [Alvin] Hellerstein, sitting in the federal court in the Southern District of New York, entertained written opposition to the motion to dismiss, and heard oral argument from the parties, as he deliberated his ruling on the dismissal motion. At the conclusion of the oral argument, the judge reserved his decision and retired to his chambers, to deliberate and draft an opinion about all the legal issues he was wrestling with to determine the motion.

Herb: Why did Judge Hellerstein seem so conflicted?

Holland: Judge Hellerstein was clearly wrestling with several legal issues pertaining to the Controlled Substances Act, and the reality that 30 states have already found cannabis to be a useful medical treatment, which directly contradicts one of the criteria of the CSA.

The first issue is referred to in legal terms as “Exhaustion of Remedies,” that is, whether he must defer to the prior decisions of the FDA regarding the scheduling of cannabis. The Government based its dismissal motion in part on a claim that the Plaintiffs had failed to “exhaust their administrative remedies” under the CSA. In other words, because no petition had first been filed with the FDA to reschedule cannabis, the court was without jurisdiction to actually entertain the claims of the plaintiffs and thus the case should be dismissed.

Judge Hellerstein, however, did not seem particularly swayed by that argument because several federal criminal cases have found that there is no requirement to file a petition to exhaust that administrative petition remedy when there are claims that constitutional rights are being violated by the enforcement of cannabis as a Schedule I drug under the CSA. That rule was upheld in late 2017 by the federal court in upstate New York, in a case known as US v. Green, which caused Judge Hellerstein to pause during the course of the oral argument.

Herb: Do you think that was Judge Hellerstein’s primary concern?

Holland: Not really. The issues that seemed to trouble Judge Hellerstein the most about the CSA petition process was whether he as a judge was without jurisdiction to hear, or must defer to, the administrative agency role of the FDA and prior findings in 2013 and 2016, that cannabis was properly classified as a Schedule I.

If he did have such jurisdiction, could he stand in the shoes of the FDA agency and make his own determination about the propriety of that schedule? He further was concerned about any restrictions on the court’s analysis of the language of the statute, and the proper evidence to be evaluated, to determine whether the three criteria of Schedule I status continues to be met by cannabis. Factors noted by him included the fact that 30 states had legalized marijuana for medical purposes, the federal government had filed a patent on certain cannabinoids from the cannabis plant, and the plaintiffs clearly obtained, and are able to maintain, a better quality of life because of it.

Cannabis as a neuroprotectant and antioxidant

Herb: The language of the statute regarding the three criteria seems straightforward.

Holland: It is straightforward as “conjunctive” in that cannabis seemingly must satisfy each and every one of the three factors to qualify as a Schedule I substance and any failure of any factor renders the designation void. In other words, if Plaintiffs proved the failure of cannabis to meet any one of the three criteria (i.e., 30 states have found medical validity to marijuana), a conjunctive approach, was the court required to find the Schedule I classification null and void?

However, what seemed to concern Hellerstein was that generally, when a federal court reviews an agency’s determinations like those of the FDA repeatedly determining that cannabis satisfies the Schedule I criteria, the court must generally evaluate and disjunctively weigh all the factors in the aggregate to determine if they are satisfied with the intent of the criteria and classification.

This was a concern of the court in Green mentioned above, as well as the Eastern District of California court in the US v. Picard case which, after a 5-day hearing of evidence on the science behind the classification, ultimately concluded that any determination to reschedule cannabis is best left to Congress.

Herb: Do you think Judge Hellerstein will defer to Congress?

Holland: This quandary of whether to defer to Congress invokes the “Political Question” doctrine, where courts should generally not make decisions that are political in nature and best left to the legislative process. It is difficult to tell where Judge Hellerstein will ultimately fall on this political question issue, but he surely will wrestle with the fact that 30 states have already legalized cannabis despite its Schedule I status. That means that as a matter of politics, the actions of Congress should already have responded to the legislative actions taken by an overwhelming majority of the states.

Herb: So would he really be trodding on the toes of Congress by ruling on the classification of cannabis?

Holland: We will see.

Herb: One argument advanced by the plaintiffs was that the CSA and federal law enforcement should not govern over cannabis in the 30 legalized states.

Holland: That is correct. They argue that although Congress may regulate “interstate commerce”—aka the “Commerce Clause”— between the states, such state-based activity in those 30 states does not impact “interstate commerce.” Judge Hellerstein seemed to dismiss the argument out of hand, citing federal case law which finds that even a negligible or de minimis impact on commerce is enough to give federal jurisdiction over the issue.

Herb: There was also the argument of equal protection under the law, and racism. While the history of prohibition, ignited by former drug czar Harry Aslinger, wasn’t addressed in court, President Nixon and his administration’s racist motivations for instituting the CSA were definitely called into question. Judge Hellerstein seemed dismissive of the Nixon argument. Can you talk about how Nixon’s systemic racism is still a contributing factor to the CSA?

Holland: The Cannabis Cultural Association [one of the plaintiffs] brought a claim on behalf of their members of color, who were disproportionately targeted for prosecution for marijuana offenses under the CSA. People of color unequally suffered collateral consequences stemming from those convictions as a result.

Judge Hellerstein seemed un-persuaded by statements of President Richard Nixon and his advisor, John Ehrlichman, Esq., which made clear that the criminalizing of marijuana under the CSA was a means to suppress minorities and social dissent against the Vietnam War. Judge Hellerstein suggested that any racist tendencies of the Nixon Administration were not attributable to Congress under the separation of powers doctrine—where the powers of one branch of government are not affected by the actions of another. While there are compelling arguments to the contrary, which were not heard during the hearing, it is hoped that the issue is revisited in Judge Hellerstein’s opinion. However, since so much of that claim seems to be a question of fact that will require lots of discovery and information to be tendered by the Government, it is unlikely to be the primary focus of his anticipated decision.

Herb: It seems that there are various possible outcomes. Do you think Judge Hellerstein will dismiss the case? He hinted that he was going to kick the case to the second circuit court.

Holland: There are three possible resolutions to the Government’s motion to dismiss. Firstly, there is the potential dismissal of the claims. Secondly, Judge Hellerstein could deny the motion and all claims will proceed to trial, or lastly, some mixture of the two.

Based on the comments and concerns of the court there is a possibility that the court will follow the precedent of the district courts in Picard and Green, and find this to be a political question. However, if the court finds that there are some claims that may be dismissed but others are tenable, then there is a strong possibility that Judge Hellerstein will berate both the FDA and Congress for failing to reschedule or de-schedule cannabis, especially in light of the fact that 30 states have found that there is medical validity to marijuana. After all, as he openly stated, the plaintiffs are the best evidence of the effectiveness of cannabis as a medical cure.

For now, we will just have to wait and see. A ruling is expected as soon as this week.

]]>https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/courts-consider-order-end-marijuana-prohibition/feed/0‘Flaw’ Discovered in Ohio’s Marijuana Licensing Process - The Cannabis Reporterhttps://www.thecannabisreporter.com/flaw-discovered-ohios-marijuana-licensing-process/
https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/flaw-discovered-ohios-marijuana-licensing-process/#respondTue, 20 Feb 2018 14:00:09 +0000https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/?p=69589An Ohio state auditor found that two state employees could have had the ability to manipulate applicant scores in Ohio’s competitive medical marijuana licensing process. Some of the fiercest competition for a piece of the marijuana market in the entire country has been in Ohio, and with good reason. There’s more potentially at stake in…

An Ohio state auditor found that two state employees could have had the ability to manipulate applicant scores in Ohio’s competitive medical marijuana licensing process.

Some of the fiercest competition for a piece of the marijuana market in the entire country has been in Ohio, and with good reason.

There’s more potentially at stake in Ohio than many other states. Why? It’s a question of mathematics, a market inefficiency, created by design: Ohio has a population of 11.6 million people. To service that sizable potential market, state regulators are issuing no more than 24 licenses to cultivate marijuana.

That’s a few degrees more permissive than Florida, where initial plans to license no more than five cultivators (later expanded to seven) sparked an international bidding war for licenses valued at as much as $200 million thanks to the scarcity. Even though Ohio has a few more licenses than Florida, the scarcity has still invited cutthroat businesses practices — as well as intrigue.

In January, Ohio saw a lawsuit filed by 63 of the 143 applicants who were denied licenses for a medical marijuana cultivation operation.

And now, a state audit of the licensing process has revealed a “control weakness,” a “critical flaw” that allowed just two state employees to “change scores or manipulate data” from applicants, according to Cleveland.com.

The two workers with the Ohio Department of Commerce had “unlimited access” to the accounts of more than 20 applicants.

These workers, and not applicant reviewers, had lone control over applicants’ passwords, which could not be changed by the applicant. They also limited applicant-scorers’ access to certain parts of the applications, according to the review.

“Because of this critical flaw in the procedure’s design, neither this office, nor the public, can rely upon the cultivator application results,” wrote state auditor Dave Yost, as per the website, which received Yost’s memo through a public records request.

In his memo, Yost is recommended immediate changes — specifically, the adoption of basic policies such as keeping usernames and passwords secure — and warning that “failure to implement these recommendations could compromise the medical marijuana evaluation and selection process.”

Despite the potential for a breach, there’s no sign yet of any trickery. Jacqueline Williams, the state’s commerce director, rejected the implication of “improper contact.”

Potential problems with Ohio’s licensing process arose after several other problems with applicant reviewers were revealed. One consultant had a previously unknown felony drug conviction on his record, and another pair of consultants had their objectivity called in question after links to an applicant — and potential license-holder — was revealed.

Full reviews are ongoing, according to Cleveland.com, whose efforts to interview Commerce Department officials were rebuffed.

In the meantime, winning applicants are breaking ground on their new cannabis palaces and making plans and promises to investors of fantastic profits. The first cultivation facility in the state is in the small, rural community of Yellow Springs, Ohio. There, a Chicago-based company is building a $7 million, 50,000-square foot complex that includes office space and manufacturing space as well as 25,000 square feet of cultivation.

This is a process being closely watched by some of the rejected applicants, at least one of whom— Cincinnati’s Jimmy Gould, who called the applicant process a “travesty” — has vowed to file a lawsuit to upend the entire process, according to multiple reports.

Gould, it so happens, was one of the investors behind a 2015 ballot initiative that would have legalized recreational marijuana in Ohio outright, skipping the medical cannabis step entirely.

]]>https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/flaw-discovered-ohios-marijuana-licensing-process/feed/0Purdue Pharma will no longer market its opioids to doctors - The Cannabis Reporterhttps://www.thecannabisreporter.com/purdue-pharma-will-no-longer-market-opioids-doctors/
https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/purdue-pharma-will-no-longer-market-opioids-doctors/#respondTue, 20 Feb 2018 13:32:15 +0000https://www.thecannabisreporter.com/?p=69597Early this week, pharmaceutical giant Purdue Pharma announced that it would stop marketing opioid painkillers to doctors. For years, Purdue has barraged the nation’s doctors offices with salespeople, armed with pamphlets containing misleading information about the dangers and addictive potential of their opioid medications. While Purdue makes other prescription drugs like fentanyl and codeine, the…

]]>Early this week, pharmaceutical giant Purdue Pharma announced that it would stop marketing opioid painkillers to doctors. For years, Purdue has barraged the nation’s doctors offices with salespeople, armed with pamphlets containing misleading information about the dangers and addictive potential of their opioid medications. While Purdue makes other prescription drugs like fentanyl and codeine, the company is most well known for manufacturing OxyContin.

OxyContin is a dangerous and highly addictive painkiller comprised almost entirely of Oxycodone, an opioid analgesic that is molecularly similar to heroin. Doctors’ liberal prescription of opioid drugs like OxyContin has been one of the main drivers behind what is commonly known as the opioid crisis—an unprecedented epidemic of opioid drug addiction and overdose deaths. Drug overdoses are currently the leading cause of accidental death in the United States.

Purdue has long been known for its aggressive and wildly misleading marketing campaigns, calling to mind the deceptive tobacco industry ads of the past. The Sackler family, the owners of Purdue and one of the wealthiest families in America, previously owned medical journals and an advertising agency, both of which they used to sell their products. This was widely seen as unethical, and a blatant conflict of interest.

In the 1990’s, Purdue commonly advertised its prescription painkillers by handing out pamphlets and paying for advertisements that falsely proclaimed that roughly 1 percent of opioid users develop an addiction. In 2007, the pharmaceutical company was finally taken to court and charged for their deceptive marketing tactics. As a result of the lawsuit, Purdue paid out roughly $600 million in legal fines. This number represents only a small fraction of the approximately $35 billion dollars that Oxycontin has made for Purdue.

The company is also currently being sued by over 400 cities, including New York City, and the city of Philadelphia. The state of Delaware is also currently suing Purdue. The city of Chicago sued Purdue for similar reasons in 2014.

Many experts consider Purdue’s prolific marketing campaign to sell these drugs to be one of the primary drivers of the opioid crisis. The number of lives claimed by these drugs is staggering: OxyContin and other prescription opioids are responsible for roughly two hundred thousand deaths in the United States in the last two decades.

While the lawsuits against the company are still active, Purdue’s decision to discontinue this marketing campaign is a small victory for their opponents.